Mandatory Health Insurance part 3

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Minus the thousands of deaths and all

All of the deaths on Obama's watch occurred in Afghanistan....

[Diemen]

Ugh. Can we get to some substantive discussion instead of sniping at each other?

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by maycocksean

It appears to me that the ACA may be Obama's Iraq War: His signature achievement that went horribly wrong.

Originally Posted by U2DMfan

The politics of doing it when they did it was the worst political decision made during his first term. That it later became a terrible piece of legislation made it even worse. That it has become a nightmare to implement in his 2nd term probably means that you are exactly right.

Originally Posted by Pearl

I agree. Its a big disappointment.

Originally Posted by maycocksean

The "If you like your insurance you can keep it" is perhaps the equivalent of "mission accomplished." :smh:

I'm sorry, but I think this is a knee-jerk and way pre-mature comparison. The Iraq War lasted for ten years and resulted in over 4000 American deaths and over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

The implementation of the ACA has been going on for one MONTH. I know that one month has been rocky, but can we please give it some time before declaring it a total failure, much less comparing it to the Iraq War?

And that's not say I'm giving everyone a pass for what's happened with the implementation thus far. They should have ponied up for a company that would get the website right the first time, and if President Obama knew that the insurance companies were going to start canceling cheap plans because they aren't up to the ACA's standards, then he never, ever should've said so definitively "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it".

Dropping those cheap plans affects a small minority of people, and although it sucks for them, the rationale being given is that those plans were cheap for a reason, that they didn't cover enough and the insurance companies didn't always pay out on them, and that overall they weren't dependable plans, and that even though you'll have to buy a new, more expensive plan than the one you were on, you're still getting a much better plan that you previously had for a cheaper price than that much better plan would've cost previously. That's the way I understand it anyway. And I can buy that argument, but again, if the President and his administration knew this was going to happen, and I don't think there's any argument you can make that they didn't know, then he never, ever should've said "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it."

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

If you guys had what the rest of the free world has for just a week, you'd never go back.

Would that be the same "free world" whose healthcare costs are subsidized by the United States' Defense budget and the same "free world" that enjoys the innovations, procedures and drugs produced by the for-profit United States healthcare system?

You seem to think the "free world" exists in a vacuum and would be unaffected by drastic changes in American foreign or domestic policy.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by namkcuR

I'm sorry, but I think this is a knee-jerk and way pre-mature comparison. The Iraq War lasted for ten years and resulted in over 4000 American deaths and over 100,000 Iraqi deaths.

The implementation of the ACA has been going on for one MONTH. I know that one month has been rocky, but can we please give it some time before declaring it a total failure, much less comparing it to the Iraq War?

And that's not say I'm giving everyone a pass for what's happened with the implementation thus far. They should have ponied up for a company that would get the website right the first time, and if President Obama knew that the insurance companies were going to start canceling cheap plans because they aren't up to the ACA's standards, then he never, ever should've said so definitively "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it".

Dropping those cheap plans affects a small minority of people, and although it sucks for them, the rationale being given is that those plans were cheap for a reason, that they didn't cover enough and the insurance companies didn't always pay out on them, and that overall they weren't dependable plans, and that even though you'll have to buy a new, more expensive plan than the one you were on, you're still getting a much better plan that you previously had for a cheaper price than that much better plan would've cost previously. That's the way I understand it anyway. And I can buy that argument, but again, if the President and his administration knew this was going to happen, and I don't think there's any argument you can make that they didn't know, then he never, ever should've said "if you like the healthcare you have, you can keep it."

Well, my comparison of ACA to the Iraq War was more about something that was hyped up so much as being great for America, and it only turned out to be something that sounded deceptive. While its true Obama didn't flat out lie about ACA, he wasn't entirely honest either. At the same time, there was hope that ACA would be a success in order to silence the naysayers. Unfortunately, the naysayers have plenty of reasonable ammunition now.

I also blame the media on this. Since it is their job to keep on an eye on a story's developments, shouldn't they have known that this would have happened?

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by digitize

Do you find them equally bad, or is one even marginally preferable over the other to you? I realize that you find them both unpalatable. I'm not trying to bate you into saying something that I'll later attack; I'm genuinely interested to hear your answer, because I don't know how I'd feel if I were a conservative.

,

They both increase third party payment for medicine, government regulation and centralize decision making which is the opposite of individual choice, competition and free markets--that is why I reject them both. The only difference between single payer and ACA being a choice between pure socialism or the state-capitalism of ACA which transforms health insurance companies into national utilities told what they must provide, they must charge and who they must serve.

We had the best healthcare in the world with a lousy, patchwork payment system filled with the market distortions of disconnected third party payers, cost-shifting and defensive medicine... now both are worse.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by INDY500

,
We had the best healthcare in the world with a lousy, patchwork payment system filled with the market distortions of disconnected third party payers, cost-shifting and defensive medicine... now both are worse.

Then was it really the best in the world? Why would a market worshiper as yourself separate the two, that doesn't coincide with your religion?

[anitram]

It was the best in the world if you are in the top say 3-5%.

For everyone else, it's far below what your neighbours to the north have and what the Europeans have and the Australians have. Many Americans just are unable to understand and/or admit this.

Most people on this thread would NEVER have the benefit of the "best healthcare in the world." That's reserved for people several socioeconomic rungs above.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

It was the best in the world if you are in the top say 3-5%.

For everyone else, it's far below what your neighbours to the north have and what the Europeans have and the Australians have. Many Americans just are unable to understand and/or admit this.

Most people on this thread would NEVER have the benefit of the "best healthcare in the world." That's reserved for people several socioeconomic rungs above.

PolitiFact | Will says that 95 percent of people with health insurance are satisfied with it

That's simply not true on any level. In 2010 85% of people in the country (90% of citizens) had coverage and 95 % of those were "happy" with their coverage. That tells me they were happy with the care they were receiving.

[PhilsFan]

That article literally says it's 87 percent, not 95 percent. It mostly backs up your point anyway, but it does beg the question of whether you actually read anything.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by INDY500

That's simply not true on any level. In 2010 85% of people in the country (90% of citizens) had coverage and 95 % of those were "happy" with their coverage. That tells me they were happy with the care they were receiving.

Well I guess if you twist yourself into a pretzel and disconnect yourself entirely from any kind of rational analysis, you can interpret that as them having the best healthcare in the world. Next time one of these surveys tells us that people in Botswana are happier than people in the USA we'll all be able to conclude they live in the best country in the world.

You think that all those people had access to the doctors, hospitals, procedures and treatment that people who live on 5th Avenue do? I mean talk about a bridge in Brooklyn...

[BVS]

Does "satisfied with it" really qualify for 'best in the world' now?

[Irvine511]

Coming out of my break to say that I had a meeting at work today. As I've said, I work in a field that's heavily populated with freelancers, and most either have catastrophic coverage, no coverage, or pay for a plan themselves, which is what I have done for the past 8 years.

Because my company must now comply with the ACA, we are being offered employer-subsidized health care for the first time.

My yearly costs will literally be cut in half. I can get a so-called "Cadillac" plan for about half of what I presently pay. Plus dental and vision. I'm beside myself.

So, yeah, thanks Obama.

It's a very good day.

Back to silence.

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by anitram

Well I guess if you twist yourself into a pretzel and disconnect yourself entirely from any kind of rational analysis, you can interpret that as them having the best healthcare in the world. Next time one of these surveys tells us that people in Botswana are happier than people in the USA we'll all be able to conclude they live in the best country in the world.

You think that all those people had access to the doctors, hospitals, procedures and treatment that people who live on 5th Avenue do? I mean talk about a bridge in Brooklyn...

Where do physicians, specialists, lab technicians, etc, from all over the world come to practice medicine? Which healthcare system has the shortest waits for care? Which healthcare system accounts for the vast majority of innovations? Which healthcare system is expensive because of cutting edge technology that isn't offered elsewhere?

Yes, I'm biased and yes, you can find excellent care around the world, but I stand by my statement.

[solemole]

Originally Posted by INDY500

Would that be the same "free world" whose healthcare costs are subsidized by the United States' Defense budget and the same "free world" that enjoys the innovations, procedures and drugs produced by the for-profit United States healthcare system?

Um, U.S. Defense budget is about 1-2% of the whole U.S. budget.

Mind these 3 points:

• For those who complain about the "complexities" of ACA and 3rd party payments, this is why single payer universal healthcare should have been in place from the get-go.
  
  
• 7 million people get health insurance for free! Those, who otherwise would not consider buying health insurance, because they consider themselves healthy enough and find no need to see doctors often, would get health insurance FOR FREE. They would buy the bronze plan; and if they can't even afford that, Medicaid (if the States were humane enough) would fill in the payment for premiums.
  
  And in case, God forbid, they ever need emergency services, the costs would be off-set by everyone else who have paid into the mandatory healthcare system.
  
  Whereas before, by duty and oath, doctors would HAVE TO take in those with no insurance, and in most cases, two scenarios would happen: 1.) Hospital takes the hit for costs, if patient absolutely cannot pay up. 2.) Those, who could barely pay, would have to pay "a leg and an arm" to save the other leg.
  
  
• U.S. heatlthcare are inefficient in terms of costs to long-term outcomes.
  From University of California, Santa Cruz:
  
  
  
  Can you see how backwards U.S. healthcare is, to spend so much per capita, only to have its life expectancy rank 27th in the world?

[Kieran McConville]

Empire: This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things

[INDY500]

Originally Posted by solemole

Um, U.S. Defense budget is about 1-2% of the whole U.S. budget.

Um, try 20%.

Mind these 3 points:

For those who complain about the "complexities" of ACA and 3rd party payments, this is why single payer universal healthcare should have been in place from the get-go.

Single payer by definition is a 3rd party payer.

[*] 7 million people get health insurance for free! Those, who otherwise would not consider buying health insurance, because they consider themselves healthy enough and find no need to see doctors often, would get health insurance FOR FREE. They would buy the bronze plan; and if they can't even afford that, Medicaid (if the States were humane enough) would fill in the payment for premiums.

Why not FREE health care for all? What could be cheaper than FREE? What could be more humane than FREE?

And in case, God forbid, they ever need emergency services, the costs would be off-set by everyone else who have paid into the mandatory healthcare system.

Oh, so it isn't really FREE is it? Someone else is being compelled (that's what mandatory means) to pay for it or render services at no cost.

Whereas before, by duty and oath, doctors would HAVE TO take in those with no insurance, and in most cases, two scenarios would happen: 1.) Hospital takes the hit for costs, if patient absolutely cannot pay up. 2.) Those, who could barely pay, would have to pay "a leg and an arm" to save the other leg.

[*] U.S. heatlthcare are inefficient in terms of costs to long-term outcomes.
From University of California, Santa Cruz:



Can you see how backwards U.S. healthcare is, to spend so much per capita, only to have its life expectancy rank 27th in the world?[/LIST]

Meaningless. As one example, the fact that thousands of youths are killed each year in drug or gang related activities impacts life expectancy but hardly reflects on the healthcare system.

[solemole]

OK. You're right. Defense is 20%. But majority of the pie is for the social net, to catch those who fall through the cracks. That includes unemployment, Medicare, and Social Security.

But my understanding is: single payer would mean you pay you're share through taxes, and you walk in and out of the hospital, pretty much without paying much or at all.

[BoMac]

Originally Posted by solemole

But my understanding is: single payer would mean you pay you're share through taxes, and you walk in and out of the hospital, pretty much without paying much or at all.

That's the way it works in Canada (I know, I know. Nobody cares). And I didn't have to sign up anywhere. I signed up the day I was born.

Recently, I've had to go to my family doctor. He checked me out, then ordered an exam at the hospital. They called me shortly afterward and set up an appointment for later that week.

I had my follow-up appointment today (it's all good) and not one cent came out of my pocket. It all comes from taxes, which I gladly pay because, while our system is far from perfect, I believe in universal health care. It's a beautiful, beautiful thing.

[nathan1977]

I'm sorry to have to do this, but

Originally Posted by solemole

you pay you're share

AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHH.